IJIRST –International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology| Volume 4 | Issue 2 | July 2017

ISSN (online): 2349-6010

Relationship between Critical Success Factors

and Performance Indicator Factors in
Automobile Industry of Gujarat
Nareshkumar D. Chauhan Dr. Pranav H. Darji
Research Scholar Professor & Head
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
C. U. Shah University, Surendranagar - Ahmedabad C. U. Shah University, Surendranagar - Ahmedabad
Highway, Nr. Kothariya Village, Wadhwan City - 363030. Highway, Nr. Kothariya Village, Wadhwan City - 363030.
Gujarat. India Gujarat. India

Dr. M. N. Qureshi
Associate Professor
Department of Industrial Engineering
College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Guraiger, Abha - 62529, Saudi Arabia

Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to identify the adoption of the lean manufacturing along with comparative study of critical success
factor with performance indicator. This study helps to find the relation of both parameters in Lean Manufacturing practices. A
survey is conducted within the automobile parts manufacturing organization of the Gujarat. The present study illustrates the
normality test of the data obtained from the survey and multiple regression analysis of the available data in terms of the critical
success factors and performance indicator within organization. The relationship between critical success factor and performance
indicator has been examined through various segments of automotive industries. This study also emphasize on variation in
awareness of Lean Manufacturing with number of employees, age of organization, tier of organization, product mix and operation
type.
Keywords: Lean Manufacturing, Critical Success Factors, Performance Indicator, Normality Test, Multiple Regression
Analysis, Krushkal Wallis Test
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

Lean manufacturing is a systematic method for the elimination of waste ("Muda") within a manufacturing system. Lean
manufacturing makes obvious what adds value, by reducing everything else which not adding value. This management philosophy
is derived mostly from the Toyota Production System (TPS). Lean Manufacturing is a philosophy and art of manufacturing; it is
not a quantified tool. It is not providing any scale to depict the percentage of implementation; hence there are certain challenges
which act a bottleneck while implementing the lean manufacturing.
This study consists of critical success factor and performance indicator amongst the rest of parameters such as barriers,
environmental factors, executional factors, organizational factors etc. Critical success factor are the phase which favors the
implementation of the lean manufacturing. It is a kind of practice which is mandatory in lean manufacturing implementation, while
performance indicator is a measure of success factors. It can be scrutinize in various criteria such as financial, customer, process,
people, future etc. Table 1.1 shows the methodology carried out for this research work.
Table - 1.1
Methodology
Sr. No. Steps
1 Problem identification
Data collection
2
Normality test
3 Krushkal Wallis test
4 Multiple Regression Analysis
5 Chi-square test

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 127

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Based on the existing gap in literature review, the co-relation have been found between Performance Indicator and Barriers in
implementation of Lean manufacturing in Automotive industries with in Gujarat, It was decided to conduct a Quantitative study.
Individual concept has been analyzed and quantitative scales already exist in specialized literature.
Questionnaire Preparation:
A data collection instruments was based on the structured questionnaire for collected data about the concepts those were previously
reviewed. The questionnaire contains information on the characterization of respondent companies and four blocks of assertions:
one for the “Structural Details”, second for “Lean manufacturing techniques”, third for “Barriers for implementation Lean
manufacturing”, and last fourth for “Performance Indicator”. Altogether, the questionnaire presents six questions about structure
of industries, four questions for Lean manufacturing implementation and remaining assertion for Barriers and performance
indicator. A 5-point Likert scale was adopted, where 1 represents “totally disagree” and 5 represents “totally agree” or vice versa.
Data Collection:
The first phase of data collection comprises of the collection of the various automotive industries details in terms of company
address, Authority person’s E-mail id & contact collected with in Gujarat State. Personal meet as well as the mail has been sent to
the companies through a person occupying with highest position in specially production areas in Gujarat automotive industries.
The reason behind the selection of the production areas with in industries is the main indicators in implementation of the lean
manufacturing is experience and well tested by the operational and production areas. Total 730 companies were selected for the
survey. Out of all companies 134 valid surveys have been received which in turn shows the response rate of 18.35%, this number
is quite adequate suggested by synodinos. Murillo-Luna et al. state that exploration of the results can be attempts only when
response rates greater than 6% can be considered in studies that structural equation modeling.
Industries Studied:
The main target of study is for the finding in Gujarat State Industries, specifically the automobile manufacturing sector. Gujarat’s
automotive manufacturing sector initiates in the 1980s and has evolved into about 134 factories supplied by more than 3000 auto
part companies. As per our scientific survey results, 2.2 percent of the organizations have reported them as OEM Manufacturer,
41.8 percent of the respondents have reported as TIER 1 Manufacturer and 56 percent of the respondents have reported as TIER 2
or Higher Manufacturers. 6.7 percent of the organizations are 0-5-year-old, 13.4 percent of the organizations are 6-10-year-old,
19.4 percent of the organizations are 11-15-year-old and 60.4 percent of the organizations are more than 15-year-old. 44.8 percent
of the organizations are having 0-100 employees, 37.3 percent of the organizations are having 101-200 employees, 9.7 percent of
the organizations are having 201-300 employees, 6 percent of the organizations are having 301-400 employees and 2.2 percent of
the organizations are having more than 500 employees.

III. RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Test of Normality:
The following variables were tested for Normality. The Result is shown in Table 3.1
Hypothesis taken as,
H0: The Distribution is normally distributed.
H1: The Distribution is not normally distributed.
All tested variables are not found normally distributed at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence it would be appropriate to
perform non-parametric test on these variables.
Table - 3.1
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Executional .360 134 .000 .692 134 .000
Organizational .356 134 .000 .682 134 .000
Future .350 134 .000 .675 134 .000
People .354 134 .000 .678 134 .000
Process .349 134 .000 .671 134 .000
customer .352 134 .000 .681 134 .000
Finance .340 134 .000 .645 134 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Krushkal Wallis Test:
The Non-parametric test- Krushkal Wallis test has been performed and the result is shown below

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 128

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

Significant difference on basis of number of employees

Ho: There is no significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of number of employees.
Ha: There is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of number of employees.
Table - 3.2
Test Statisticsa,b
Executional Organizational Future People Process Customer Finance
Chi-Square 13.822 12.091 14.930 15.000 14.628 15.249 14.741
df 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .008 .017 .005 .005 .006 .004 .005
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: No_Employees
The Table 3.2 shows the mean rank of different categories with respect to Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator
Factors. In above table, the calculated Chi-Square, degree of freedom, and significant value is given. All seven factors are found
significant at 5 % level of significance hence it can be concluded that there is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors
and Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of number of employees.
Significant difference on basis of age of organization
Ho: There is no significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Age of the organization.
Ha: There is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Age of the organization.
Table - 3.3
Test Statisticsa,b
Executional Organizational Future People Process Customer Finance
Chi-Square 6.530 5.240 8.044 8.309 7.634 7.875 8.240
df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .088 .155 .045 .040 .044 .049 .041
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Old Organization
The Table 3.3 shows the mean rank of different categories with respect to Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator
Factors. In above table, the calculated Chi-Square, degree of freedom, and significant value is given. All Performance Indicator
factors are found significant at 5 % level of significance hence it can be concluded that there is a significance difference in
Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of age of the organization. Both Critical Success Factors are not
found significant at 5 % level of significance hence for success factors it can be concluded that there is no significance difference
in Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of age of the organization.
Significant difference on basis of tier of organization
Ho: There is no significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Tier of Organization.
Ha: There is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Tier of Organization.
Table - 3.4
Test Statisticsa,b
Executional Organizational Future People Process Customer Finance
Chi-Square 4.512 4.733 4.698 4.147 4.921 4.204 4.703
df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Asymp. Sig. .105 .094 .095 .126 .085 .122 .095
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Tier_Organization
The Table 3.4 shows the mean rank of different categories with respect to Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator
Factors. In above table, the calculated Chi-Square, degree of freedom, and significant value is given. All seven factors are not
found significant at 5 % level of significance hence it can be concluded that there is no significance difference in Critical Success
Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of tier of the organization.
Significant difference on basis of product mix
Ho: There is no significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Product Mix.
Ha: There is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Product Mix.
Table - 3.5
Test Statisticsa,b
Executional Organizational Future People Process customer Finance
Chi-Square 9.470 6.768 10.636 10.789 9.702 10.566 10.564

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 129

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .024 .040 .014 .013 .021 .014 .014
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Product Mix
The Table 3.5 shows the mean rank of different categories with respect to Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator
Factors. In above table, the calculated Chi-Square, degree of freedom, and significant value is given. All seven factors are found
significant at 5 % level of significance hence it can be concluded that there is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors
and Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of Product Mix.
Significant difference on basis of operation type
Ho: There is no significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Operation Type.
Ha: There is a significance difference in Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different
categories of Operation Type.
Table - 3.6
Test Statisticsa,b
Executional Organizational Future People Process customer Finance
Chi-Square 1.685 1.726 .952 .762 1.362 .934 1.132
df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Asymp. Sig. .431 .422 .621 .683 .506 .627 .568
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Operation Type
The Table 3.6 shows the mean rank of different categories with respect to Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator
Factors. In above table, the calculated Chi-Square, degree of freedom, and significant value is given. All seven factors are not
found significant at 5 % level of significance hence it can be concluded that there is no significance difference in Critical Success
Factors and Performance Indicator Factors between the different categories of Product Mix.
Multiple Regression Analysis:
This technique was used to predict the dependent variables (Performance Indicator Factors) from independent variables (Critical
Success Factors). The factor scores were used to run the analysis. Each model predicts the performance factors from the factor
scores of success factors.
1) Model: 1 Critical Success factors and Financial (PI: Performance Indicator)
Dependent Variable: Y = Financial (PI)
Independent variables: X1 = Organizational Success Factor
X2 = Executional Success Factor
The Table 3.7 shows the Model summary, ANOVA table and Values of coefficients and its associated significant values.
The value of R square shows that 78.1 percent of the variance in dependent variable can be explained by jointly all independent
variables.
Table - 3.7
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .884a .781 .778 .30316
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: Finance
The Table 3.8 shows the ANOVA table. The two tailed significant value for the F statistics is 0.000 hence null hypothesis can
be rejected at 5 % level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that jointly all independent variables can have influence on
dependent variables.
Table - 3.8
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 43.018 2 21.509 234.040 .000a
1 Residual 12.039 131 .092
Total 55.058 133
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: Finance
The Table 3.9 shows the coefficient values, t statistics and its associated two tailed p value. It can be seen from the table that all
variables are found significant at 5 percent level of significance.
Table - 3.9
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .849 .209 4.064 .000
1
Executional .302 .141 .268 2.142 .034

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 130

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

Organizational 1.329 .147 1.133 9.053 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Finance
The regression equation can be obtained as
Financial (PI) = 0.849 + 0.302 (Executional Success Factor) + 1.32 (Organizational Success Factor)
2) Model: 2 Critical Success factors and Customer (PI)
Dependent Variable: Y = Customer Performance
Independent variables: X1 = Organizational Success Factor
X2 = Executional Success Factor
The Table 3.10 shows the Model summary, ANOVA table and Values of coefficients and its associated significant values.
The value of R square shows that 80.9 percent of the variance in dependent variable can be explained by jointly all independent
variables.
Table - 3.10
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .899a .809 .806 .21863
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: customer
The Table 3.11shows the ANOVA table. The two tailed significant value for the F statistics is 0.000 hence null hypothesis can
be rejected at 5 % level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that jointly all independent variables can have influence on
dependent variables.
Table - 3.11
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 26.447 2 13.224 276.645 .000a
1 Residual 6.262 131 .048
Total 32.709 133
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: customer
The Table 3.12 shows the coefficient values, t statistics and its associated two tailed p value. It can be seen from the table that
organizational success factor is found significant at 5 percent level of significance but Executional factor is not found significant
at 5 % level of significance.
Table - 3.12
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .683 .151 4.537 .000
1 Executional .007 .102 .008 .068 .946
Organizational .820 .106 .907 7.744 .000
a. Dependent Variable: customer
Customer (PI) = 0.683 + 0.007 (Executional Success Factor) + 0.82 (Organizational Success Factor)
3) Model: 3 Critical Success factors and Process (PI)
Dependent Variable: Y = Process (PI)
Independent variables: X1 = Organizational Success Factor
X2 = Executional Success Factor
The Table 3.13 shows the Model summary, ANOVA table and Values of coefficients and its associated significant values.
The value of R square shows that 82.8 percent of the variance in dependent variable can be explained by jointly all independent
variables.
Table - 3.13
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .910a .828 .826 .24033
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: Process
The Table 3.14 shows the ANOVA table. The two tailed significant value for the F statistics is 0.000 hence null hypothesis can
be rejected at 5 % level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that jointly all independent variables can have influence on
dependent variables.
Table - 3.14
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 36.476 2 18.238 315.761 .000a
1 Residual 7.566 131 .058
Total 44.042 133

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 131

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional

b. Dependent Variable: Process
The Table 3.15 shows the coefficient values, t statistics and its associated two tailed p value. It can be seen from the table that
all variables are found significant at 5 percent level of significance.
Table - 3.15
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .751 .166 4.535 .000
1 Executional .248 .112 .246 2.220 .028
Organizational 1.195 .116 1.139 10.271 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Process
Process (PI) = 0.751 + 0.248 (Executional Success Factor) + 1.19 (Organizational Success Factor)
4) Model: 4 Critical Success factors and People (PI)
Dependent Variable: Y = People (PI)
Independent variables: X1 = Organizational Success Factor
X2 = Executional Success Factor
The Table 3.16 shows the Model summary, ANOVA table and Values of coefficients and its associated significant values.
The value of R square shows that 78.9 percent of the variance in dependent variable can be explained by jointly all independent
variables.
Table - 3.16
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .888a .789 .786 .25836
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: People
The Table 3.17 shows the ANOVA table. The two tailed significant value for the F statistics is 0.000 hence null hypothesis can
be rejected at 5 % level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that jointly all independent variables can have influence on
dependent variables.
Table - 3.17
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 32.758 2 16.379 245.373 .000a
1 Residual 8.744 131 .067
Total 41.502 133
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: People
The Table 3.18 shows the coefficient values, t statistics and its associated two tailed p value. It can be seen from the table that
organizational success factor is found significant at 5 percent level of significance but executional factor is not found significant
at 5 % level of significance.
Table - 3.18
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .778 .178 4.374 .000
1 Executional .115 .120 .117 .956 .341
Organizational .791 .125 .777 6.322 .000
a. Dependent Variable: People
People (PI) = 0.778 + 0.118 (Executional Success Factor) + 0.79 (Organizational Success Factor)
5) Model: 5 Critical Success factors and Future (PI)
Dependent Variable: Y = Future (PI)
Independent variables: X1 = Organizational Success Factor
X2 = Executional Success Factor
The Table 3.19 shows the Model summary, ANOVA table and Values of coefficients and its associated significant values.
The value of R square shows that 82.9 percent of the variance in dependent variable can be explained by jointly all independent
variables.
Table - 3.19
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .910a .829 .826 .25611
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: Future

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 132

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

The Table 3.20 shows the ANOVA table. The two tailed significant value for the F statistics is 0.000 hence null hypothesis can
be rejected at 5 % level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that jointly all independent variables can have influence on
dependent variables.
Table - 3.20
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 41.580 2 20.790 316.952 .000a
1 Residual 8.593 131 .066
Total 50.172 133
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational, Executional
b. Dependent Variable: Future
The Table 3.21 shows the coefficient values, t statistics and its associated two tailed p value. It can be seen from the table that
organizational success factor is found significant at 5 percent level of significance but Executional factor is not found significant
at 5 % level of significance.
Table - 3.21
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .823 .176 4.667 .000
1 Executional .151 .119 .140 1.265 .208
Organizational 1.166 .124 1.042 9.405 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Future
Future (PI) = 0.778 + 0.118 (Executional Success Factor) + 0.79 (Organizational Success Factor)
Chi-Square Test:
Ho: There is no association between No of Employees and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Ha: There is an association between No of Employees and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.22
No_Employees * awareness Crosstabulation
awareness
Total
Yes No
Count 23 37 60
0-100
Expected Count 39.4 20.6 60.0
Count 41 9 50
101-200
Expected Count 32.8 17.2 50.0
Count 13 0 13
No_Employees 201-300
Expected Count 8.5 4.5 13.0
Count 8 0 8
301-400
Expected Count 5.3 2.7 8.0
Count 3 0 3
More than 500
Expected Count 2.0 1.0 3.0
Count 88 46 134
Total
Expected Count 88.0 46.0 134.0
The Table 3.23 shows the value of Chi-square test. The calculated value of chi-square test at 4 degree of freedom is 38.350 and
its two sided P value is 0.000. It can be concluded that at 5 % level of significance, the Hypothesis can be rejected. So it can be
concluded that there is association between Number of employees in the Organization and Awareness about the Lean
Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.23
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 38.350a 4 .000
The Table 3.24 shows the strength of association between these two variables. The value of Cramer’s V is 0.260 which shows
the weak association between Number of employees and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.24
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .260 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Cramer's V .260 .000
N of Valid Cases 134
Ho: There is no association between Age of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Ha: There is an association between Age of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 133

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

Table - 3.25
Old_Organization * awareness Crosstabulation
awareness
Total
Yes No
Count 6 3 9
0-5 years
Expected Count 5.9 3.1 9.0
Count 10 8 18
6-10 years
Expected Count 11.8 6.2 18.0
Old_Organization
Count 19 7 26
11-15 years
Expected Count 17.1 8.9 26.0
Count 53 28 81
More than 15 years
Expected Count 53.2 27.8 81.0
Count 88 46 134
Total
Expected Count 88.0 46.0 134.0
The Table 3.26 shows the value of Chi-square test. The calculated value of chi-square test at 3 degree of freedom is 1.456 and
its two sided P value is 0.693. It can be concluded that at 5 % level of significance, the Hypothesis can not be rejected. So it can
be concluded that there is no association between Age of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.26
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.456a 3 .693
Ho: There is no association between Tier of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Ha: There is an association between Tier of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.27
Tier_Organization * awareness Crosstabulation
awareness
Total
Yes No
Count 2 1 3
OEM
Expected Count 2.0 1.0 3.0
Count 46 10 56
Tier_Organization TIER 1
Expected Count 36.8 19.2 56.0
Count 40 35 75
TIER 2 or Higher
Expected Count 49.3 25.7 75.0
Count 88 46 134
Total
Expected Count 88.0 46.0 134.0
The Table 3.28 shows the value of Chi-square test. The calculated value of Chi-square test at 2 degree of freedom is 11.805 and
its two sided P value is 0.003. It can be concluded that at 5 % level of significance, the Hypothesis can be rejected. So it can be
concluded that there is an association between Tier of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.28
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.805a 2 .003
The Table 3.29 shows the strength of association between these two variables. The value of Cramer’s V is 0.297 which shows the
weak association between Tier of the organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.29
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .297 .003
Nominal by Nominal
Cramer's V .297 .003
N of Valid Cases 134

Ho: There is no association between Product Mix of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Ha: There is an association between Product Mix of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.30
Product_Mix * awareness Crosstabulation
awareness
Total
Yes No
Count 33 14 47
High Volume-More Variety
Expected Count 30.9 16.1 47.0
Count 43 26 69
Product_Mix High Volume-less variety
Expected Count 45.3 23.7 69.0
Count 8 3 11
Low Volume-High variety
Expected Count 7.2 3.8 11.0

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 134

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

Count 4 3 7
Low volume-Low Variety
Expected Count 4.6 2.4 7.0
Count 88 46 134
Total
Expected Count 88.0 46.0 134.0
The Table 3.31 shows the value of Chi-square test. The calculated value of chi-square test at 3 degree of freedom is 1.24 and its
two sided P value is 0.749. It can be concluded that at 5 % level of significance, the Hypothesis can not be rejected. So it can be
concluded that there is no association between Product mix of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing
Practices.
Table - 3.31
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.243a 3 .743
Ho: There is no association between Type of Operation of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing
Practices.
Ha: There is an association between Type of Operation of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.32
Operation_Type * awareness Crosstabulation
awareness
Total
Yes No
Count 62 32 94
make to order
Expected Count 61.7 32.3 94.0
Count 14 9 23
Operation_Type Assemble to Order
Expected Count 15.1 7.9 23.0
Count 12 5 17
Make to Stock
Expected Count 11.2 5.8 17.0
Count 88 46 134
Total
Expected Count 88.0 46.0 134.0
The Table below 3.33 the value of Chi-square test. The calculated value of chi-square test at 2 degree of freedom is 0.421 and
its two sided P value is 0.810. It can be concluded that at 5 % level of significance, the Hypothesis can not be rejected. So it can
be concluded that there is no association between Operation Type of the Organization and Awareness about the Lean
Manufacturing Practices.
Table - 3.33
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .421a 2 .810

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Based on survey of 134 automotive parts manufacturing industries the data has been collected and are subjected to the normality
test. Which infers that the collected data is not normal hence Krushkal’s Wallis test has been implemented to find the significant
difference between success factor and performance indicator. Krushkal’s Wallis test has been used to find out the difference
between both the parameter in below Table 3.34 tabulated criteria;
Table - 3.34
Summary of Krushkal’s Wallis test
Sr. No. Criteria Observation
1 Number of Employee Significant difference between CSF and PI
2 Age of Organization Significant difference between CSF and PI
3 Tier of Organization No significant difference between CSF and PI
4 Product mix Significant difference between CSF and PI
5 Operation type No significant difference between CSF and PI
Multiple regression analysis has been used to find out the relationship between success factor and performance indicator which is
tabulated as in below Table 3.35;
Table - 3.35
Summary of Multiple regression analysis
Sr. No. Factors Factors Regression %
1 Finance 78.1
2 Customer 80.9
3 Critical Success factors Process 82.8
4 People 78.9
5 Future 82.9
Chi-square has been used to find out the association between awareness of lean manufacturing and selected criteria which is
tabulated as in below Table 3.36;

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 135

 Relationship between Critical Success Factors and Performance Indicator Factors in Automobile Industry of Gujarat
(IJIRST/ Volume 4 / Issue 2 / 021)

Sr. No. Criteria
1 Number of Employee
2 Age of Organization
3 Tier of Organization
4 Product mix
5 Operation type
Table - 3.36
Summary of Chi-square test
Observation
Weak association with awareness as Cramer number is 0.260
No association with awareness as p value is greater than 0.05
Weak association with awareness as Cramer number is 0.297
No association with awareness as p value is greater than 0.05
No association with awareness as p value is greater than 0.05

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the above analysis following results have been found;

 The process performance indicator is significant criteria of performance indicator which is influenced by critical success factor,
while finance performance indicator is having least influence of critical success factor.
 There is a weak association of awareness of lean manufacturing with number of employees and tier of organization, while rest
of the criteria does not have any association with awareness of lean manufacturing.

REFERENCES
[1] Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling. Foundations and Extensions. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[2] Christ of Nachtigall, Ulf Kroehne, Friedrich Funke, Rolf Steyer,” (Why) Should We Use SEM? Pros and Cons of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)”,
Methods of Psychological Research Online 2003, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 1-22
[3] Li, S. Ragunathan, B. Ragunathan, T. S., & Rao, S. S. (2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega, 34, 107-124.
[4] Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and There is no significant
difference between critical success factor and performance indicator when data has been observed under tier of organization and operation type.
[5] Environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 329-351.
[6] Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73 (5), 120-134.
[7] King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 5(1), 105-116.
[8] Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30-37.
[9] King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 5(1), 105-116.
[10] Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., & Narasimhan, R. (2007). An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 25 (5), 998-1014.
[11] Albertini, E. (2013). Does environment management improve financial performance? A Meta analysis review. Organization and Environment, 26 (4), 431-
457.
[12] Sharma, M. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Validity and reliability of applying manufacturing excellence frameworks to Indian industries”, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Part B : Journal of Engineer Manufacture, Vol. 222, No. 6
[13] Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, New York: Wiley.
[14] Trochim, W. (2002). Research methods knowledge base. Atomic Dog Publishing.
[15] Bagozzi, R. P., &Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
[16] Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22 (1), vii-xvi.
[17] Womack, J., jones, Roos, D., 1990 “The Machine That Changed the World” Macmillan, New York, NY

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 136